I have difficulties to grasp the concept of amoralism in its entirety, maybe some of you can help me out

The way I understand it, an amoral person:

• lacks belief in any morals
• denies the existence of objective morality
• does not recognise right or wrong

Is it practically possible to live a completely amoral life?

How does an amoral person -for example- deal with the question of why he should not kill another person?

Furthermore, I understand that I can apply and follow my own ethical interests without submitting myself to any moral system but wouldn't this imply that I cannot advertise my own values to others? Would this mean I shall watch other peoples' behaviour with indifference in order to be consistent with my amorality?

Please point me to the flaws for which I'm sure there are many

Smells like BS to me.

LIFE wrote:I have difficulties to grasp the concept of amoralism in its entirety, maybe some of you can help me out

The way I understand it, an amoral person:

• lacks belief in any morals
• denies the existence of objective morality
• does not recognise right or wrong

In most cases people referred to as amoral are sociopaths, etc. In another though much weaker sense, lots of people are amoral.
I don't accept the idea of objective morality, and don't believe in morality as normally defined, as such, I can't believe in right or wrong either, so by that standard I'm amoral.
On the other hand I do have my own private principles and ethics, so I'm not amoral in the sense it's most commonly used.

Is it practically possible to live a completely amoral life?

How does an amoral person -for example- deal with the question of why he should not kill another person?

Pragmatically, or based on their personal values.

Furthermore, I understand that I can apply and follow my own ethical interests without submitting myself to any moral system but wouldn't this imply that I cannot advertise my own values to others? Would this mean I shall watch other peoples' behaviour with indifference in order to be consistent with my amorality?

Not really, it just means you don't make moral claims, you don't call things good(in the moral sense) or evil, moral or immoral. There are plenty of reasons to dislike or advocate things that aren't concerned with morality.

Please point me to the flaws for which I'm sure there are many

Don't really see any tbh.

How does an amoral person -for example- deal with the question of why he should not kill another person?

Can I get away with it? Will I be murdered if I get caught?

Amorality is easy to understand, but most people find it distasteful. Consider how most adult animals treat the offspring of their rivals for example. Now imagine humans doing the same.

Tbickle wrote:Smells like BS to me.

How so?

LIFE wrote:

Tbickle wrote:Smells like BS to me.

How so?

If morality is someone's personal concept of what is acceptable or virtuous, I fail to see how a thinking individual would be devoid of any basic level of morals. Even in Tyrannical's example, a person thinking about killing another with no concern for the other person could be using their own special brand of morality. To them the killing is perfectly moral as it fits their concept of what is acceptable. Ultimately, I think that there would be something that the person would find immoral whether or not I or large groups of people would as well.

I've always thought of "amoral" as meaning not caring about morality, rather than denying its existence or meaningfulness.

For example, I agree that reducing our CO2 output is important for humanity. I've no doubt that it is the moral thing to do. So I should buy a small, slow economy car. Instead I have a rather thirsty sports car.

I wouldn't attempt to justify my choice morally. I know that my choice is not morally the best one I could make. I made the choice for selfish reasons and I would not try to justify those ethically. I don't have some alternative theory that says my choice is morally right after all. I just don't (in this case) care about being good as much as I care about the pleasure I get from driving a beautiful fast car. I ignore morality but don't deny it. I am being amoral.

Tbickle wrote:

LIFE wrote:

Tbickle wrote:Smells like BS to me.

How so?

If morality is someone's personal concept of what is acceptable or virtuous

I thought morality is a concept you always apply to groups and/or societies as a necessity?

I'm no expert on amoralism, but I suppose I'd fall into that phiosophy/condition depending on ones definition.

I absolutely, unequivocally do NOT believe in objective morality. I've never heard a good argument for the existence of it. However, I'm also very moral. I believe morals exist, but they only exist within a single consciousness, isolated and apart from the morality of others. I have no problem believing that all things are pointless while still knowing there are things I will and won't do because of how they make me feel. Where does it come from?

Well, when I finally felt the mores of society lift from me (in as much as that's possible), I didn't find myself in despair and desolation. I still felt (arguably more intensely) empathy for others. I feel it so much more than the "morality" that's artificially imprinted upon us by our societies (often religiously inspired). I couldn't do anything to someone else without literally feeling as if I were doing it to myself. Now, if someones trying to severely harm me or someone I love, fuck yeah... if I have the means, I'd kill them, no problem. Because, they were acting immorally in the first place, rather acting without empathy for their victim. I feel no sorrow for people who ignore their empathy.

This is just my anecdotal experience and isn't intended to be the only answer. Is that what you were looking for?

Chrisw wrote:I've always thought of "amoral" as meaning not caring about morality, rather than denying its existence or meaningfulness.

For example, I agree that reducing our CO2 output is important for humanity. I've no doubt that it is the moral thing to do. So I should buy a small, slow economy car. Instead I have a rather thirsty sports car.

I wouldn't attempt to justify my choice morally. I know that my choice is not morally the best one I could make. I made the choice for selfish reasons and I would not try to justify those ethically. I don't have some alternative theory that says my choice is morally right after all. I just don't (in this case) care about being good as much as I care about the pleasure I get from driving a beautiful fast car. I ignore morality but don't deny it. I am being amoral.

I guess that would be immoral, not amoral?

LIFE wrote:

Tbickle wrote:

LIFE wrote:

Tbickle wrote:Smells like BS to me.

How so?

If morality is someone's personal concept of what is acceptable or virtuous

I thought morality is a concept you always apply to groups and/or societies as a necessity?

I have always looked at morality as being quite a subjective collection of what we view as being acceptable behaviors or thoughts even. But it does seem that there are either a few definitions or interpretations of what morals are. I don't believe in objective morals by any means, but I also don't think someone could be truly amoral.

LIFE wrote:

Tbickle wrote:

LIFE wrote:

Tbickle wrote:Smells like BS to me.

How so?

If morality is someone's personal concept of what is acceptable or virtuous

I thought morality is a concept you always apply to groups and/or societies as a necessity?

Serious? I find that to be sad. I'm not picking on you by any means. It isn't sad because that's how you see it. It's sad because it exemplifies how we are deprived our own humanity (empathy/morality) by those powerful forces who wish to stamp us with their own brand.

So you think a bunch of people got together at some point (elders, churches, etc) and said, let's create two categories, those that are moral and those that are immoral? If that's how you understand it, I can certainly see why it seems that way, but where do you think those two categories came from?

It seems reasonable to think that since primates can be observed exhibiting what appears to be empathy, then we must have possessed it too in the early stages of our evolution. Whatever "objective" morality people have tried to construct over the millennia, all has roots in the empathy of our ancestors, imo.

Tbickle wrote:

LIFE wrote:

Tbickle wrote:

LIFE wrote:

Tbickle wrote:Smells like BS to me.

How so?

If morality is someone's personal concept of what is acceptable or virtuous

I thought morality is a concept you always apply to groups and/or societies as a necessity?

I have always looked at morality as being quite a subjective collection of what we view as being acceptable behaviors or thoughts even. But it does seem that there are either a few definitions or interpretations of what morals are. I don't believe in objective morals by any means, but I also don't think someone could be truly amoral.

I agree... short of any kind of sociopathic disorder, of course. As long as we have emotion, we'll have a sense of right and wrong. Not just a collection of tenets we follow.

chippy wrote:Serious? I find that to be sad. I'm not picking on you by any means. It isn't sad because that's how you see it. It's sad because it exemplifies how we are deprived our own humanity (empathy/morality) by those powerful forces who wish to stamp us with their own brand.

There can be actions which are considered moral in one society which are considered immoral in another society. When I hear someone say "You're a moral person" or "You're an immoral person" I expect that person to submit to/reject a specific moral system.

chippy wrote:
So you think a bunch of people got together at some point (elders, churches, etc) and said, let's create two categories, those that are moral and those that are immoral? If that's how you understand it, I can certainly see why it seems that way, but where do you think those two categories came from?

I'm not sure I can follow you here? It comes from the study of philosophy but I guess that's not the answer you wanted to hear?

LIFE wrote:

Chrisw wrote:I've always thought of "amoral" as meaning not caring about morality, rather than denying its existence or meaningfulness.

For example, I agree that reducing our CO2 output is important for humanity. I've no doubt that it is the moral thing to do. So I should buy a small, slow economy car. Instead I have a rather thirsty sports car.

I wouldn't attempt to justify my choice morally. I know that my choice is not morally the best one I could make. I made the choice for selfish reasons and I would not try to justify those ethically. I don't have some alternative theory that says my choice is morally right after all. I just don't (in this case) care about being good as much as I care about the pleasure I get from driving a beautiful fast car. I ignore morality but don't deny it. I am being amoral.

I guess that would be immoral, not amoral?

Immoral would be a judgement of the actions. But amoral is what we normally call someone who consistently gives a low priority to moral considerations. In contrast someone might take actions we regard as bad because they have strong moral convictions that are very different to ours. We wouldn't call such a person amoral.

There are two things that look like amoralism to most people. One is amoralism. The other is accepting personal responsibility for decisions that could be considered moral decisions.

LIFE wrote:

chippy wrote:Serious? I find that to be sad. I'm not picking on you by any means. It isn't sad because that's how you see it. It's sad because it exemplifies how we are deprived our own humanity (empathy/morality) by those powerful forces who wish to stamp us with their own brand.

There can be actions which are considered moral in one society which are considered immoral in another society. When I hear someone say "You're a moral person" or "You're an immoral person" I expect that person to submit to/reject a specific moral system.

Yes, and that specific moral system is probably their own subjective moral system. If all Christians followed the same moral system because it's actually laid out for them, we wouldn't have Christians disagreeing with each other on various moral topics. I think that a lot of people try to identify their beliefs with a particular group, but I think that if you were to offer highly morally ambiguous scenarios to that group, they would probably come up with different answers at least some of the time.

chippy wrote:
Serious? I find that to be sad. I'm not picking on you by any means. It isn't sad because that's how you see it. It's sad because it exemplifies how we are deprived our own humanity (empathy/morality) by those powerful forces who wish to stamp us with their own brand.

Morality is generally and historically meant to apply to everyone, if it's moral for A then it's moral for B. The whole thing looks sadder and sadder the more you look into it tbh, it's fine for casual conversation, but pretty much just ingroup/outgroup name calling beyond that.

So what if I reject any predefined moral standards and simply come up with my own personal construct on which I base my ethics on? I'm not amoral but follow my own moral code?

LIFE wrote:So what if I reject any predefined moral standards and simply come up with my own personal construct on which I base my ethics on? I'm not amoral but follow my own moral code?

Sounds about right. That's why I find the whole notion somewhat ridiculous as even the amoralist's position that following a life by a set of morals, could ultimately be a part of their personal moral code.